TRANSCRIPT: "THE INDICTMENT OF PROHIBITION PANEL"

Dean Becker:

The greatest evil of drug prohibition is the collusion of our government.
The participants of the New York Times Drug Policy Forum are proud to
present the second in our ongoing series of panels: "The Indictment of
Prohibition Panel": Superior Court Judge James P. Gray, Nobel Laureate
Milton Friedman, Canadian Barrister Eugene Oscapella and Author Catherine
Austin Fitts.

Judge Jim Gray's Website http://www.judgejimgray.com/

More about Judge Gray
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Judge+Gray

Read about Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman at
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/friedman.html More at
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Milton+Friedman "Who would believe," Friedman
asks, "that a democratic government would pursue for eight decades a failed
policy that produced tens of millions of victims and trillions of dollars
of illicit profits for drug dealers, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of
dollars, increased crime and destroyed inner cities, fostered widespread
corruption and violations of human rights - and all with no success in
achieving the stated and unattainable objective of a drug-free America."

Canadian Barrister and Solicitor Eugene Oscapella, a founding member,
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy ( www.cfdp.ca ) recently presented "How
Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise Enables Terrorism"
http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm to the Senate of Canada Special Committee
on Illegal Drugs.

Catherine Austin Fitts bio is at http://solari.com/about/ca_fitts.html She
is the author of 'Narco-Dollars For Dummies' linked from
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1887/a08.html See also
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Catherine+Austin+Fitts

Future guests in this series are listed at
http://www.cultural-baggage.com/schedule.htm

Judge James P. Gray:

Good evening to all. It is a pleasure and an honor to talk about this most
critical issue facing our great country with good and caring people. I have
reviewed most of the questions that have been posted so far, and the issues
raised are those that I deeply wish our governmental officials would
acknowledge and then address. Unfortunately, the issues are so extensive,
and multifaceted that it is not possible to address them satisfactorily in
the amount of time we have. In fact, that is why I felt forced to write my
book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed. . ." If you want more information
about my beliefs, please visit my website at www.Judgejimgray.com, or, of
course read my book.

With regard to the many questions about what our society would be like if
we actually focused upon individual responsibility, I strongly suggest
everyone read Dr. Friedman's watershed book "Free to Choose." Arguments for
the right way to go simply cannot be put any better than that.

I will post this beginning, and then come back with more specific responses
to the questions. It will be a fun evening. Judge Jim Gray

Eugene Oscapella:

Re: Judge Gray's comments I am also delighted to appear in this forum, and
I must echo Judge Gray's comments about the difficulty of trying to respond
adequately to complex and multifaceted questions. However, we will soldier
on and do our best, I am certain.

Milton Friedman:

Delighted to join my fellow panelists. I regard drug prohibition as
thoroughly immoral. If it is ok for the govt. to tell me what I may put in
my mouth, why not what I may put in my head.

Catherine Austin Fitts:

Glad to join tonight. Welcome everyone. Catherine Austin Fitts

Mary Jane Flores: MY QUESTION - particularly address to Judge Gray and
Barrister Eugene Oscapella in particular

There has been much talk in legal circles here in the United States
regarding drug courts. While these courts maybe be helpful for addicts and
problem users who commit other crimes in pursuit of their drug seeking
behavior, what possible use is sentencing users who are not addicts or
problem users to such courts and subjecting them to the criminal justice
system? Specifically, why should marijuana users who are not problem users
be subjected to "drug treatment", drug tests and probation when they do not
have a drug problem?

In fact what purpose is served by sentencing addicts that are not a problem
for society and have not committed other crimes in pursuit of their drugs,
such as Robert Downey, Jr., Ken Caminiti and David Crosby to drug treatment?

Eugene Oscapella:

maryjaneflores Re: Drug Courts I sometimes look at drug courts as a
last-ditch attempt by the criminal justice system to keep its claws
embedded in drug policy. That said, I know that many people feel that drug
courts are an acceptable alternative to incarceration, particularly if they
offer a means of avoiding extraordinarily harsh mandatory minimum penalties
(we do not have mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses in Canada,
but I know that this is a major issue in the United States)

I agree that people without dependency problems should not be subject to
any sort of treatment programs such as those envisaged by drug courts. I am
not a big fan of drug courts in general, since a question remains in my
mind -- why do we need to use the courts to force people into treatment? We
know all too well that there are not enough treatment slots for those who
want treatment, and we may be taking resources away from programs that
could help -- for example, programs to deal with the foundation causes of
harmful forms of drug use . JamesKPolka:

For the 7 January Forum panelists: "My opponent is soft on crime" and "We
don't want to send the wrong message to our children" seem to be the bumper
stickers which fatally choke the political process to keep drug reform
almost entirely out of the legislative dialogue.

For example, Rockefeller Law reform in New York State is still dead in the
water out of fear a reform vote will give challengers a powerful attack issue.

How would the panelists overcome this sound-bite suffocation so that
ordinary voters get a chance to hear meaningful debate, rather than
bumper-sticker smears, in state and federal legislative races?

Bob Merkin Northampton MA

Eugene Oscapella:

Dear Bob: Re: Sound-bite suffocation You hit on one of the perennial
issues. It is painfully easy -- and quick -- to promise to get "tough on
drugs," but it takes much longer to explain in any detail the flaws of
prohibition. We could try to snap back with a couple of sound bites
ourselves - for example, "Support Terrorism. Keep Prohibition." - but I
don't think that really resolves the issue.

By the time an election rolls around, it may be too late to lay the
groundwork for challenging that sloganeering. You really need to start much
earlier, so that when elections come around, the public is already
sufficiently distrustful of prohibitionist sloganeering that they will
challenge the candidates.

At the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, as with many of the other
organizations in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, we have been
seeking to do a more thorough form of public education so that the public
will not tolerate the empty sloganeering that so much dominated the
discussion of drug policy and that to a certain extent continues to be very
evident.

We also tried to call politicians to account whenever possible. In other
words, if they say something stupid, find a way to point it out. If they
know that they will be held accountable for what they say, they are much
less likely, in most cases, to continue to make irresponsible statements.
The other thing I might suggest is writing letters to people who do make
these outrageous statements. Even if you cannot challenge them in the
press, you can let them know that they are being watched and that they will
be held accountable for what they say at some point if you have the
opportunity.

Ultimately, however, I have to lay some faith in technologies such as the
Internet, which has given us the opportunity to challenge propaganda at a
cost we can all manage. No wonder there has been so much talk over the
years about suppressing certain types and discussion on the Internet.

Gawainekaye:

Milton Friedman, Judge James P. Gray, Barrister Eugene Oscapella and
Catherine Austin Fitts

Welcome to the New York Times Drug Policy Forum and thank you all so much
for being here! Your time and insight are greatly appreciated! Even as an
ordinary citizen only on the edges of the drug policy reform movement, this
campaign has always been very educational and now I am thrilled to have
such extraordinary teachers as yourselves here today!

I have some questions that any of you may wish to address:

Q#1: My understanding of the origins of the prohibition drug laws are they
were rooted in anti-immigrant and racist prejudices in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries.

Specifically, state opium prohibitions targeted Chinese immigrants, state
cocaine laws targeted blacks, and "marijuana" laws targeted Mexicans. These
were Jim Crow days and colored drug users saw the ridiculousness of
crossing the street to let white citizens pass on the sidewalk. These laws
gave cops a handle by which to grab uppity folks in defiance of the color
code and the economic subservience that went with it. That there were
several million members of the ku klux klan in the 1920s should give us
some sense of the terrible racial climate under which these laws were
created and applied.

My question is this: To what extent are these racist origins of the drug
laws still relevant to understanding the drug war today? Has it morphed
into something different as the war budget of $$ billions annually creates
huge interests seeking permanency (DEA and other federal, state and local
police agencies and bureaucracies, their hired think tanks like CASA,
forced-treatment centers and counselors, pee-testers and other detection
industries, pamphlet and ad-producers, etc) --and as the prison
construction boom replaces manufacturing jobs, isn't there also a political
dynamic there that naturally feeds into the moral posturing and pork-barrel
prosperity necessary for political careers? Or is the drug war still
performing a racial or at least underclass-control function? It seems that
no matter what role the interests play in making the drug war so difficult
to stop, the urban (black) communities of this country have continued to be
hardest hit by the imprisonment of millions and the turning of
low-opportunity or disadvantaged neighborhoods into free-fire drug bazaars.
Since there has always been at least some correlation between color and
economic power in this country (generally-speaking), does the skewed
enforcement of the drug war reflect an ongoing use of prohibition as a
handle for police to grab those elements of society least satisfied with
their station and therefore most likely to disrupt the system? Is the War
On Drugs still ultimately a govt. tool of social control more under the
guise of drug control than the intention? Do you think lawmakers make these
kinds of social-control calculations as they consider drug policy? If not,
do you think these racially skewed results of the WOD are nonetheless known
to them and therefore they are at least showing a callousness or neglect
towards the needs of these communities?

Q#2: It seems to me the lynch-pin allowing the War On (some) Drugs to
remain politically possible is parents' fears that their kids will have
access to dangerous drugs. Could a legally regulated, age-restricted market
for recreational drugs be designed to make drugs less accessible to kids
than they are today under the prohibition drug laws? Should the drug law
reform movement be drafting and publicizing different plans for a regulated
market and emphasizing that this will better limit youth access to drugs?

Q#3: Wouldn't these draft plans for a regulated market reducing youth
access to drugs be something that drug reformers should be bringing to
discussions with the NAACP and Urban League and other local organizations
reflecting interests of black and urban communities, as a way of reducing
youth access to drugs as it dries up the flow of black market drug business
and the attendant violence and conflicts with the law? It seems to me there
would be quite a political shift in the drug war debate if important
leaders of urban and black communities would speak out for replacing the
criminal approach to drugs with a public health approach.

Judge James P. Gray:

There was a question about the difference in today's political climate that
would be felt if the minority leaders and religious institutions would
begin to question more of the Drug Prohibitionist policies. I certainly
agree. In fact, I have been shocked that these people have not been shaking
their political fists at these laws long ago. Although I said before, and
believe, that we are not perpetuating the War on Drugs for racial reasons,
but it undeniably has had that effect. Just go to any of our nation's jails
and prisons and whom do you see? It is shameful that we incarcerate so many
of our minority people. And the disparity between sentencing for powder
cocaine (which is primarily used by Whites) as opposed to crack cocaine
(which is primarily used by Blacks) furnishes lots of material for people
who see conspiracies in our governments.

Eugene Oscapella:

gawainekaye Re: racism and the drug war You have raised a series of
important issues.

Racism has long been an element of the war on drugs in many countries. The
origins of many of our drug laws were racist in many cases. In Canada, our
first opium law - in 1908 - was essentially directed and Asian immigrants.
Our first federal cannabis law - in 1923 - was based on the hysterical and
racist rantings of a Canadian magistrate. Even as late as 1997, Canada
enacted a prohibition against the drug "qat" (or "khat") - not a drug used
by many Caucasian Canadians, but one that has long been used among
immigrants from eastern Africa.

And, of course, even if our drug laws were not racist in their origins, one
can strongly argue that they are racist in their application. The
incarceration rates for different racial and ethnic groups in the United
States and in other countries reflect this.

Whether this is a clearly planned strategy of annihilation through racially
motivated enforcement of drug laws has been examined in a book by Richard
Miller, Drug Warriors & Their Prey. And many commentators have decried the
discriminatory effect of drug laws - enhanced surveillance of minorities,
greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction, and lengthier sentences.

I don't know the extent to which racism drives the war on drugs today. So
many factors, including racism, are behind the war on drugs. One other
important motivating force is profit. In other words, who profits from
prohibition - criminals and terrorists for sure, but also prison builders,
companies that sell drug testing equipment, police forces, defense and
prosecuting attorneys, companies that hire cheap prison labor, weapons
suppliers, and politicians who, despite our best efforts, continue to be
elected on promises of getting "tough" on drugs. And of course, let's not
forget that global powers have historically used or tolerated the drug
trade as a means to prop up ideologically aligned groups in other
countries, so the global powers have an interest in maintaining prohibition too

Judge James P. Gray:

The first questions dealt with how we began our programs of Drug
Prohibition. From my research, I believe (and it is hard for me to say
this) the basis actually was racism. We prohibited opium so that Chinese
men would not corrupt our white women; cocaine to stop Black men from doing
the same, and marijuana to keep those people from south of the border from
the same.

I suppose one way of tackling the issue might be to ask, "Who stands to
profit the most from the status quo?" In whose best interest is it to keep
the U.S. drug policy exactly the same as it is now?

Milton Friedman:

Cindy: Two groups stand to profit most from the continuation of the WOD:
law enforcement and the drug cartel.

Celaya:

All the evidence the Reform community has compiled over the years points to
the conclusion that the government/corporation battle to maintain
prohibition is not based on concern for the citizenry, but rather for quite
nefarious purposes. Social control and most likely, to reap the benefit of
a huge "underground" flow of money that has corrupted our institutions in
ways beyond imagination.

If that can be a given, how do you see the battle shaping to cleanse the
system of these greed motivated usurpers since they are now the most
powerful force on the planet? That is, what should our first step be? What
is their likely reaction and so forth?

Catherine Austin Fitts:

Celaya - I believe that a first step is illumination of resources at the
local level. At its root, narcotics trafficking and WOD are a highly
centralizing economic force. It generates a high margin cash flow for those
who manage it, but it slowly liquidates the equity and productivity of a
place.

That said, the interrelationships between government management of
resources (taxations as well as expenditures through credit, appropriations
and regulation/enforcement) is very interconnected with the financial
aspects of narcotics trafficking and WOD at the local level.

If citizens start to map out how the money works locally, starting with the
federal, state and local government operations, they can move to a much
higher participation in local governance that has highly concrete benefits
in terms of improving resources use. There are numerous reengineering
opportunities in the transparent cash flows.

As resource management involves much more local activity, the honest people
in a community can get hold of enough control of the transparent cash flows
to start to both understand and figure out how to deal with the
non-transparent cash flows.

THIS MUST BE DONE IN A WAY THAT IS NET CASH FLOW AND EQUITY POSITIVE. If
not, it will not deal with the deepest political issue --everyone wants a
check this week.

Place based financial information on a local basis can give concerned
citizens a practical pathway. It takes time and work, but it can be both
safe and highly profitable. Reoptimize resource use locally in a way that
address the financial addiction to drugs.

There are 63,000 neighborhoods in America. There is only one way to
decentralized power and money.

Just do it.

Brian Fish:

It seems to me that a major portion of the thrust to legalize drugs is
coming from the right, some from the extreme right wing,-- libertarians and
anarcho-capitalists. While I agree that the vast majority of people who
experiment with various kinds of drugs do not become addicted, or suffer no
long-term ill effects, nevertheless there are some who do suffer ill
effects. We see them on the streets and in the gutters along with many of
the mentally ill. Since the right wing is so totally comprised of Social
Darwinists

1)are you prepared to just leave these people to die or are you
prepared to accept what the left would say and adopt adequate funding --
with taxes --- so that these people have some form of public health system
to support them? 2) How do you propose to stem profiteering by the big
pharmaceutical companies and ensure that the information vendors and users
have is not misinformation as has been the case with many prescription
drugs, and of course with tobacco for all this time?

Milton Friedman:

Brian Fish - And when did you last beat your wife? The amorphous right you
conjure up does not exist. A major argument against drug prohibition is
that it produces more sick and desperately ill people than would occur
under legalization, when there would be a control over quality of drugs,
someone to sue for misrepresentation and fraud. Those who favor
legalization of drugs are for limited not no government, and limited
government includes the provision for the destitute, whether because of a
drug addiction or any other reason. As to the drug companies and their high
prices the chief malefactor is the FDI, whose procedures have raised
inordinately the cost of producing drugs.

Brian Fish: To Professor Friedman: My question was given in good faith,
sir, as I support the legalization and control. Unfortunately, your
response seems to indicate I hit a tender spot and was uncalled for "And
when did you last beat your wife?" and to say "The amorphous right you
conjure up does not exist." is patently wrong. I agree when you say "A
major argument against drug prohibition is that it produces more sick and
desperately ill people than would occur under legalization, when there
would be a control over quality of drugs, someone to sue for
misrepresentation and fraud." but under your capitalist system who can
afford it? I also agree that SOME of "Those who favor legalization of drugs
are for limited not no government," but believe that it is a mere platitude
for you to say "limited government includes the provision for the
destitute, whether because of a drug addiction or any other reason." As far
as the drug companies are concerned, I suggest you read the fictional work
by John LeCarre "The Constant Gardener" to know where I come from on that.
Moreover, maybe it's their powerful lobby with the politicians that is
reflective of the corruption there. The dilemma is with unbridled
capitalism and the New World Order. Let's put it another way -- big Pharma
would have a vested interest in the WOD as well as abolishing the WOD.

Milton Friedman:

Brian Fish. I certainly did not realize where you come from. Under
capitalism, more people have been able to afford more things than under any
other system. Without exception, the countries in which ordinary people
have both most individual freedom and are most prosperous are countries
that rely predominantly on capitalism to organize economic activity. Big
Pharma is in effect in collusion with the FDI. In general, monopoly can
only persist when it gets the support of government. This forum is not the
place to debate capitalism vs ???

Brian Fish:

To Milton Friedman: I wasn't debating capitalism. I was simply asking a
question about what you do about the few who fall between the cracks with
legalization, as it is a question I have been unable to respond to
adequately. I thought you would have provided more insight than that.
Another issue is that the reason there is no research in certain areas of
recreational drugs is because big Pharma controls the purse strings -- see
Professor Olivieri at the University of Toronto -- see also the reasons
that GHB was declared a Date Rape Drug. I'm disappointed in your response,
I'm afraid

Milton Friedman:

Brian Fish: I do not believe that anyone falls through the cracks with
legalization, in the sense that any current consumers of drugs are made
worse off. Society, through personal charity and legal provision, now has
an imperfect safety net to help people who are in trouble, whether because
of drugs , or illness, or unemployment, or age, or whatnot. I do not
believe that any additional provision would be necessitated by the
legalization of drugs.

Sinbad 32:

Can the panel answer the tough question put to them by the right thinking
MAJORITY that oppose drug legalization and all the harm sure to result? I
think not.....

Here's another they will run from

Will LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS WILL LEAD TO INCREASED USE AND INCREASED
ADDICTION LEVELS?

Catherine Austin Fitts:

Sindbad32, My vote would be to move the legalization issue to local
control. There are many issues in our society that are best policed by
culture, family and community without involvement of government.

That will reserve our (scarce) criminal justice resources for the people
who are causing harm to others. Otherwise, conservatively, we have about 20
million people in our country who use some form of illicit substance
(mostly marijuana) on a regular basis. From simply a numbers standpoint,
even if it was a good idea, how could we possibly put all of these people
in jail? What would we do with them? It's silly.

Now that I have gone through many of the early questions, I would welcome
current questions. It is much more fun to have a conversation that a
"lecture."

Al Robinson:

I think the quotation Dean used from Professor Friedman nicely summarizes
the basic problem. Any rational intelligent person, if he or she really
reviews our current drug policy -- whether we refer to it shorthand as the
"war on drugs" or as drug prohibition -- and its consequences will be
forced to the conclusion that the policy doesn't make sense and should be
abandoned in favor of something that does make sense, one that would make
it more difficult for children to gain access to dangerous and addicting
drugs and that would take public health and science and basic human rights
into account. And yet we keep waging it, wasting ever increasing amounts of
money on it, even in the face of a new war on terrorism, and even when it
is in fact helping fund terrorists all over the world. We continue to
imprison ever more American citizens, destroying the rain forest, and all
the other things we know result from this destructive policy. It seems to
make no sense whatsoever.

Or does it make sense? If it doesn't make sense, why do we keep pursuing
it? I'm always interested in hearing my old friends Eugene Oscapella and
Jim Gray on this or any other aspect of the policy, but I'd be especially
interested in hearing Professor Friedman and Catherine Austin Fitts address
this question from their special standpoints of being experts in economics
and finance. Obviously the war on drugs benefits those whose livelihood
depends on it, such as prison guards and other elements of what we've come
to refer to as the prison industrial complex, but are they enough to
account for the incredible waste of money and lives that are being lost as
a result? Does the war on drugs benefit anyone else we haven't been
thinking about? Have we been thinking about the problem in the right way?

Thanks for your help with this. I appreciate very much your all being here
tonight.

Milton Friedman:

Al, The drug war is not the only thing that doesn't make sense that
continues indefinitely. To take a simple example, quotas on the import of
sugar that double or triple the price of sugar to the ordinary housewife
make no sense, yet they have been in effect for decades and doubtless will
be for many more years. You underestimate the TYRANNY OF THE STATUS QUO. I
believe that at least half the expenditures of government do not make
sense, but few of the others do as much harm as drug prohibition. Mostly
they are just a waste of money but don't like the drug war cause thousands
of deaths, not only in USA but in Latin America and elsewhere.

Judge James P. Gray:

I agree with Dr. Friedman (one can never go wrong doing that. . .), the
tyranny of the status quo is an amazing phenomenon. And the drug
prohibitionists are using it in so many ways. But I also go back to my
college days, when one of my history professors said that if there is
anything wrong with our government, it is our fault -- because it is our
government.

And take heart: I am convinced that most people really do want what is best
for our people, and the world. We really are perpetuating this failed
policy through a lack of thought and accurate information. So let's work
harder.

[continued in part 2 of 2]